Your browser does not support iframes. For maximum efficiency, please upgrade to your browser's latest version or use an iframe compatible browser such as Internet Explorer, Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, Firefox, Bezilla, Galleon, WarpZilla or Lynx.

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 0

Pros:

Cons:

The review of this lens is now over 6 years old - several lifetimes in today's digital world. The much newer 24-120 f/4 lens is a significant upgrade to this one - will you be reviewing that newer version any time in the near future?

longlens

Registered: September 2011Posts: 1

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by longlens

Review Date: 9/28/2011

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $460.00| Rating: 7

Pros:

wide range, good build quality, good images

Cons:

apparent wide range in final Nikon acceptable tolerances, my lens was initially soft, but after return to Nikon image became outstanding

Initially soft images due to poor assembly by Nikon.After return by me to Nikon and Nikon (long Island) service image quality outstanding except at 120. Maximal performance ( as with most lenses) at f 8. Sharp contrsty images, barely perceptible CA at widest angle (24mm). Not quite as sharp as later produced Nikon 18-105, wider low end helps, since am rarely at 120mm. Slightly prefer later produced 18-105, but would not get the newest F.4 version of the 24-120. Have tried it, can't easily see difference, but my lens DID go back to Nikon for adjustment.

erat123

Registered: October 2010Posts: 1

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by erat123

Review Date: 10/13/2010

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $400.00| Rating: 9

Pros:

Great starting lens

Cons:

Low quality results

Overall, if you're like me and just getting into photography, this lens is awesome! It has a great zoom and really helps you get comfortable with your camera.
In the end though, some lenses may take higher quality pictures - but for a "good for most things" lens, I would recommend it.

Fgbd300

Registered: May 2010Posts: 3

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by Fgbd300

Review Date: 5/19/2010

Would you recommend the product? No |
Total Spent: $600.00| Rating: 7

Pros:

Nice zoom range, good VR, fast focussing

Cons:

images don't have a 'bite'

I have this lens now for more than 4 years, it has been used on a D50, D60, D70, D80 and D300s. Mechanically it is well constructed, feels nice, very fast focussing, very good VR (even though it is the first VR implementation). The 5x zoom range is nice on the cropped sensor, great for walkaround.
The image quality is never excellent, when stopped down to f/8 or more it is quite good, but you loose the playing with DOF. Wide open you definitely miss sharpness. Overall the lens is ok but now that I have a few primes I realize what I miss with this lens: The images never have a 'bite'......

funfotodotno

Registered: April 2010Posts: 1

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by funfotodotno

Review Date: 4/13/2010

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $600.00| Rating: 8

Pros:

Large zoom area!

Cons:

A lens that too often receives too bad reviews. It is an excellent street lens due to the large zoom range and adequate image quality.

Ok it has it´s shortcomings but on a good day it allows you to take the picture at a distanse or with a 24mm wide angle - and who cares about the corners anyway?

Having read not so good reviews about this lens, I decided anyway to buy an used one, on Ebay.
The lens was in good condition.
Construction quality is OK, and the lens feels solid.
My camera is a D700, with a full frame sensor, and the auto-focus is OK even at the tele end.
Optically, this lens was a big deception.
The image is soft at any focal length, and toward the 120 mm, it gets blurry even in the center.
You have to go to f10 to have an acceptable quality after postprocessing.
At the wide end and full open, there is a lot of light faloff in the edges, maybe it's not so visible on an APS-C sensor, but on a full frame sensor it's terrible.
Edges are also blurry on the wide end.
Full open, they are noticeable ghostings in zones whith harsh contrast (per example, a roof against the sky).
All in one I would'nt recommend this lens.
I have two other lenses, a 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S (reviewed on slrgear) and a 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 AF-D, wich are both far better.

jmancini

Registered: April 2007Posts: 4

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by jmancini

Review Date: 4/8/2007

Would you recommend the product? No |
Total Spent: $495.00| Rating: 7

Pros:

fast af

Cons:

so-so image quality

While not a 'bad' lens, it's not enough of an upgrade over a kit 18-55 to justify the price. If you're considering it to get more range, look at the 55-200 instead, or skip this one entirely and go to the 18-200, which has a wider range and better image quality too. This is an older lens, designed for film first, and it shows.

I returned mine; this was a solid "pretty good" lens, but I prefer the "great" and "exceptional" ones.

leprechaun

Registered: December 2006Posts: 7

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by leprechaun

Review Date: 1/7/2007

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $500.00| Rating: 9

Pros:

Does everything I expected

Cons:

I wanted a VR lens for available light shooting, and one with a good zoom range for most walkaround shooting opportunities. This lens fit the bill for both film and digital bodies.

Its size is comfortable, at least to me. It has essentially the same feel as Nikon's 18-70 and 12-24 lenses, but with the abovementioned film+digital flexibility.

I appreciate the M/A focusing flexibility and the well sized focusing ring.

It may not be tack sharp to the edges wide open, but in real world shooting this is not evident. Since I don't shoot test charts, I've neve been disappointed with any image from it.

What I do appreciate is the benefit of the VR. I've shot with it at 1/8 sec handheld so often that it's become routine. The results are excellent; crisp and very enlargeable.

I guess what it comes down to is this: Would you rather have alens that tests a bit soft in the corners or sharper lens that you can't handhold in low light? Yes, I have faster primes, but I's rather be able to zoom in the moment than crop later. Flexibility has great value.

My example of this lens was purchased used. It has a noticeable clunk from the VR at times. Don't know if it's just my lens, but it performs very, very well.

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 8

Pros:

Fantastic for 35mm shooters

Cons:

image quality is slightly lacking

A lot of people don't like this lens and claim that it's "soft" but soft is very relative. I've found that if you're just looking for a lens to play around with on family trips, especially if you're shooting film, this lens is THE lens to have.

First of all I'm addicted to having the 24mm field of view, as opposed to the "better" lenses which start at 28mm.

Second, the VR does indeed come in handy when you're shooting film and it's inherent fixed ISO rating. Instead of pushing your film to get an extra stop of shutter speed at the time of capture, you can let the VR do the work

If you're digital though, this lens is an annoying 36mm on the wide end. I'd much rather have my 24-85mm AFS, which is smaller/lighter and sharper, thus making it perfect for landscape kind of photography. Whereas again, the 24-120 may be sharp enough for a 5x7" or an 8x10", it's not pro quality.

-Matt-

bobhodgen

Registered: December 2006Posts: 1

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by bobhodgen

Review Date: 12/19/2006

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $500.00| Rating: 8

Pros:

Useable range of focal lengths, VR, good all around lens.

Cons:

Not very fast, kind of big, too much plastic.

I use this lens on an old D1. Although I have a few primes and assorted off brand zooms, I use this lens 95% of the time. Although it's not very fast, the VR makes up most of the time. I can't notice any defects in image quality with my 3 MP camera. Almost all blurry shots I get are a result of operator error. I'm very happy with this lens.

Sam

Registered: December 2006Posts: 2

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by Sam

Review Date: 12/16/2006

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $525.00| Rating: 8

Pros:

Very good general purpose lens. It is my walking around lens.

Cons:

Would very much like a depth of field scale

The lens is light, portable, and is small enough to travel well. I usually carry several lens when I travel, but usually wind up using this lens for most shots. Most of the prints I have distributed have been 13" x 19" and have never had a complaint about the image quality.

llitten

Registered: December 2006Posts: 4

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by llitten

Review Date: 12/9/2006

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $300.00| Rating: 8

Pros:

size, focal lengths provided

Cons:

not quite wide enough

I own the older, 24-120 before VR.
Great wedding lens. Quick focal length from 24 - 120.

weisgrau

Registered: December 2006Posts: 6

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by weisgrau

Review Date: 12/5/2006

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $545.00| Rating: 8

Pros:

Compact, good performance, good build, vibration reduction

Cons:

Optical Contrast is good but not great

The lens performs well enough for professional use, at least my clients don't object to images from it. Using it on a Nikon D200 its 36 to 180mm effective focal length is great for street photography. The VR makes it possible to shoot indoors under available light in spite of the aperture limitations. When I travel I carry the 12-24mm Nikkor with me for wide angle. Together the two lenses cover about anything you will want to shoot. For those who feel 180mm is not long enough let me remind you of Robert Capa's words: "if the picture is not good enough, you were not close enough."

OldRedFox

Registered: November 2006Posts: 14

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by OldRedFox

Review Date: 11/20/2006

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $500.00| Rating: 9

Pros:

Great "walk around" range, VR works and helps

Cons:

Not quite wide enough, constrast a bit low

A solid, useful lens. The drawbacks are that 24 is a bit too long for many family/landscape shots on an APS sensor and in comparison with my 18-70 Nikon lens the constrast is a bit lower and the saturation of bit less as well. That aside, it is a better built lens then the 18-70 and in many situations the increased length is more important than wider angle on the 18-70. VR is also handy and effective. If I had to choose only one, the 24-120 would probably be the one, even though the IQ is a touch higher with the 18-70.

Discpad

Registered: October 2005Posts: 3

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by Discpad

Review Date: 10/25/2005

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $525.00| Rating: 9

Pros:

Flexible

Cons:

VR = BAD when panning

If you shoot auto races, you need a wide range zoom so you don't have to change lenses or carry two bodies. This lens, nicknamed "Streetsweeper" is a fave of photojournalists; and for me, works well in the pit lane when I might be shooting something 1/4 mile away and have to capture pit lane action yards away instantly. The downside is that you have to shut down the VR when panning.: You can pick up the older, non-VR lens on eBay for about $200.

Ross_Alford

Registered: October 2005Posts: 36

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor review by Ross_Alford

Review Date: 10/20/2005

Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 9

Pros:

VR allows handheld shooting at low ISO in low light, actually very sharp and contrasty when stopped down 1-2 stops

Cons:

Very few; front section feels wobbly but several samples all do so it must be by design

I think the narrative description of the test results for this lens is far too negative about image quality. If you look at the performance over the zoom and aperture range, it is not perfect wide open, but stop down 1-2 stops and it is superb. It is almost universally true, even of extremely good lenses, that really great results do not occur wide open. The criticism of results at f/30 or so is also unfair, at those apertures diffraction is the major factor for any lens, as the MTF testers at photodo.com say, at small apertures almost all lenses are equally bad.

Because this lens has VR, you can afford to shoot at the "sweet spot" apertures of about f/8-11 even in low loght. I routinely handhold about 1/8 sec at 24mm, 1/15 to 1/30 at 120. Results are spectacularly sharp and contrasty. When I moved to a d2x I suddenly realized several lenses I had thought were perfectly useable couldn't cope with the high demands it makes on lens quality; this lens was not one of them, it remains the lens most often on the camera.

Example: taken at 120mm (180mm equivalent) at 1/10 second f/5.6 handheld, and cropped a bit too